3 ms·

I describe this problem as misaligned purposes. You want to consume plastic stuff; Disney World wants to sell you plastic stuff; a magical time ensues. But yo

I describe this problem as misaligned purposes. You want to consume plastic stuff; Disney World wants to sell you plastic stuff; a magical time ensues. But you buy Windows because you want a useful OS; whereas Microsoft make Windows as a shop-front for their paid-for services; your purpose and the makers' purpose are misaligned, and you end up frustrated and annoyed that Windows isn't what you want it to be. Similarly, if a website's purpose is to make money (which is fair enough of course), but you're there because you want to read interesting stuff, that's a misaligned purpose and a frustrating time for you. Websites that exist primarily to show off interesting stuff tend not to tax the content-blocker so hard, because the author and audience's purposes are well-aligned. And community-governed OSes/distros tend not to push other services, because the purpose for making them genuinely is to be a useful OS (for their intended niche). My suggestion for what it's worth: choose tools and services where the maker's purpose for making it aligns with your purpose for using it.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
> choose tools and services where the maker's purpose for making it aligns with your purpose for using it What if they don't exist anymore? Because not taking advantage of your users by advertising to them means leaving money on the table. Eventually some executive is gonna show up, notice that and demand that it be done because his compensation is directly tied to revenue growth or something.
- grey_earthling 4y ago
  Yep. I'm saying: avoid things that exist primarily to make loads of money. Smaller, looser, less-commercial organisations have fewer or no executives, less concern with making as much money as possible, and (in my opinion) tend to produce less bullshit. This is distinct from producing good-quality work — their output may be unpolished, but it'll generally be sincere, and free of over-commercialised tat.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    Which ISP, phone company, or electrical utility company works like that? They don't, because we have (hopefully) regulated them. There is a point in which a product stops becoming a choice and starts becoming necessary to function. You could argue that operating systems are one of those things. Lets put some ideas together for regulation in these spheres.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> choose tools and services where the maker's purpose for making it aligns with your purpose for using it What if they don't exist anymore? Because not taking advantage of your users by advertising to them means leaving money on the table. Eventually some executive is gonna show up, notice that and demand that it be done because his compensation is directly tied to revenue growth or something.

grey_earthling 4y ago
Yep. I'm saying: avoid things that exist primarily to make loads of money. Smaller, looser, less-commercial organisations have fewer or no executives, less concern with making as much money as possible, and (in my opinion) tend to produce less bullshit. This is distinct from producing good-quality work — their output may be unpolished, but it'll generally be sincere, and free of over-commercialised tat.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  Which ISP, phone company, or electrical utility company works like that? They don't, because we have (hopefully) regulated them. There is a point in which a product stops becoming a choice and starts becoming necessary to function. You could argue that operating systems are one of those things. Lets put some ideas together for regulation in these spheres.